Thursday, November 5, 2015

We've seen some dramatic developments in Australian Far Right politics in the past few weeks: the communist Left who have been attempting to disrupt and prevent the mass anti-Islam rallies have been vanquished - thoroughly - which is a win for nationalism; but sympathisers with Jewry and the Jewish state of Israel have taken over the Reclaim anti-Islam movement - thoroughly - which is a blow to nationalism. The battle has now become one not between patriots and communists but between nationalists and Zionists.

The Reclaim movement (Rise Up Australia, Reclaim Australia, UPF) has been hijacked by a political machine run by sinister bosses who resemble the politicians of Boardwalk Empire and the Tammany Hall fixers in Scorsese's classic Gangs of New York (2002), men who largely eschew the spotlight and prefer to do their work in darkness.

One should imagine Australian nationalism as a city, a municipality, like Chicago, New York or the sleepy cities in the South which were once dominated by infamous political machines and bosses with colourful names such as Tweed, Plunkitt and Crump. Likewise, the Reclaim anti-Islam rallies should be considered as elections - elections for the positions of leadership of the Australian nationalist movement - and just like the machines of old, the present array of Zio-bosses have perverted the electoral process. In Gangs-, on election day, some demagogues hired by Tammany Hall run for various offices, some of them spouting anti-immigrant (Irish immigrant) inflammatory rhetoric and others championing the interests of the Irish; these demagogues rile up the poor and downtrodden masses (who go on to vote Tammany) and then disappear, never to be seen again. The orators of the Reclaim travelling circus pretty much do the same. As for who gets the prestigious appointment of Reclaim speaker, well, the Zio-bosses decide that - just like Boss Tweed. And the Zio-bosses decide who gets the favour, the privilege, of attending the rally.

The results of the 'election' are fixed as well: like Tammany Hall, the Zio-bosses use intimidation and fraud against the 'voters'. (Without going into detail, some of the anti-Zionist Aussie nationalist groups at the rallies have been on the receiving end of trickery and violence).

Where's the justice? To get justice, you must have the ear of the king - the supposed leaders of Reclaim - but Reclaim runs along a system of courtier and clique politics, just like Medusheld in Lord of the Rings and King's Landing in Game of Thrones. An aggrieved nationalist who seeks an audience with the king will find his way barred. (He'll even find his way barred to the after-rally drink or barbeque: just like the Tammany bosses who gave their constituents dinners, dances, picnics and hikes, the Zio-bosses control access to Reclaim leisure time and socialising).

How did all this come about? For starters, we nationalists were distracted - understandably enough - by the epic (by Australian standards) battle between the communists and the patriots; we didn't pay that much attention to internal nationalist politics. We assumed that the anti-Islamics were 'on our side' and were just like us. We saw what we wanted to see. Those of us of a neo-Nazi and neofascist bent confused Reclaim - just like the Left - with neofascism and neo-Nazism. Mussolini, Hitler and Mosley used demagoguery and rabble-rousing, so did the orators of Reclaim, so what was not to like? But being a stirring orator at a right-wing event doesn't necessarily make you the reincarnation of Hitler; after all, look at the demagoguery of Tammany's rent-a-politicians or Louisiana's famous boss politician Huey Long.

But while self-deception on our part was involved, a little deception - on the part of the enemy - was as well. We were told, again and again, that such and such a person in Reclaim held 'racialist' and even pro-Hitler views, even though he had never made those views known publicly, and that all the Zionism and the potshots against Hitler and National Socialist Germany in every second Reclaim speech (all to prove that Reclaim really wasn't 'racist' or 'Nazi') were mere window-dressing. The impression was given that a sophisticated bunch of Far Right, racialist and neofascistic activists were running Reclaim as a front group; anti-Islam was being used to open the door wide to other things.

Now, without doubt a skilled, experienced political operator - a party man, a cadre man - for Far Right nationalism could set up an anti-Islam front group, and provided he keeps a tight grip on the reins of power, use it for good; he could attract plenty of Australians using anti-Islam as bait and then go on to introduce them to other, more subversive concepts. But in order to that, he must keep a tight lid on the Zionists, who will inevitably flock to an anti-Islam organisation like bees to honey. The cause is lost if he allows the Zionists to take over and impose their own rules. And the Zionists invariably do.

I'm sure that some in Reclaim will attempt to persuade me that all is not lost, that the Zios are at the point of being purged from the movement, that genuine nationalists are welcome, that progress is just around the corner. But, in order to understand our present position, let's consider some history - the US presidential elections of 1948 and 2008, when communist proxies (Wallace and Obama respectively) were running for office. The communists at that time would have debated amongst themselves whether or not to get behind these candidates - whether or not the expenditure of finite party resources was worth it - but they never debated whether or not their presence would be accepted in the Progressive or Democrat parties. Wallace, in particular, refused to expel the communists from his party. The contrast between their situation and ours couldn't be more apparent. In the anti-Islam movement - thanks to Zio control - nationalists and racialists find themselves to be unwelcome and have been de facto expelled.

Paradoxically, while racialist, race realist, nationalist, Alt Right, New Right, neo-Nazi, neo-fascist, white nationalist ideas (or whatever you label want to pin on them) find themselves enjoying unprecedented success in 2015, we are faced, in Australia, with a proliferation of pro-Zionist and multiracialist groups. Just as the Far Left in Australia loves its Trotskyism, the Far Right loves its Zionism. On the Trotskyite side, we find a very long list: Australasian Spartacist League, the Freedom Socialist Party, Socialist Alternative, Socialist Equality Party, Solidarity, Trotskyist Platform, Socialist Party (Australia), Socialist Alliance; on the Zionist side, Reclaim Australia, Rise Up Australia, Australian Party of Freedom, Australian Liberty Alliance, Wanted (WA), Aussie Infidels, Australian Defence League, Patriotic Defence League of Australia, the Q Society and now the UPF....

So what's wrong with all this Zionism? Rather than engage in a theoretical polemic, I'll merely point out one difficulty posed to us by Reclaim's political model (Zio-bossism). We know from history that machines can last up to fifty to a hundred years; it may be that Reclaim will be around for years to come. But in terms of achieving any long-term political success, its prospects are limited, for one reason only, and that is its lack of cadre. In rural and regional areas such as Bendigo, Reclaim has generated tremendous excitement and interest; but, just like the demagogues of Gangs-, who deliver one rabble-rousing speech on election day and then disappear, Reclaim has left its followers in these towns hanging. Reclaim ought to be sending cadre men to these areas to indoctrinate and educate through party meetings, lectures, study circles, discussion groups; patriot- and nationalist-minded men and women in the rural and regional areas should be learning all aspects of modern Far Right politics - about Judaism, Islam, communism, Australian political history... If this campaign of political education is carried out, the political educators will succeed in replicating themselves - cadre begets cadre. And as we know from the past of other countries - Germany, for example - political education is the only this way that an extremist movement, whether it be of the Far Left or Far Right, can put roots (deep roots) into a community. But, in order to implement it, the Reclaim activist will need to think like a commie or a Nazi - and he is incapable of doing that.

One has to ask if the Zio-bosses actually do intend to 'win over the masses' with their anti-Islam and assimilationist message of if they merely want to perpetuate their grip on power. I say the latter over the former and that the next step for the anti-Zionists (and there are a few) on the Australian Far Right should be to challenge them for that power. How to do this? Part of the inspiration for my post here comes from the American communist William Z. Foster, who wrote an article on communism versus boss politics in an obscure journal. He endorses the creation of a political group (communist controlled, of course) which shall be the reverse mirror image of the boss political machine: the group or party shall be financed by dues, not by donations from shady patrons; it shall undertake a rigorous political education of its sympathisers; it will make appointments on the basis, not of favouritism and nepotism, but of political reliability; it will manage social events...

One with any experience of communism won't find any of this particularly new. But Foster does introduce two new ideas which (to my knowledge) haven't been tried before, at least in Australian nationalist politics: the pressure group and the 'People's Legislative Conference'.

For the former, Foster conceived the idea of a communist-controlled 'grievance committee of the people' which would use conventional protest methods - strikes, pickets, boycotts, petitions - to put pressure on City Hall and force it to address long-standing issues (poor sanitation, lack of roads, lack of housing, etc.). Such a grievance committee 'massifies' problems, i.e., politicises them and puts them before the mass. This approach constitutes a different one from that of the bosses, which keeps problems out of view of the public and resolves them by 'fixing' - a phone call from the boss ensures that so-and-so gets a council job, or that a new road gets built, or that so-and-so gets off a speeding ticket...

The pressure tactics and 'massification' that Foster advocates can be applied by nationalists to the Zio-bosses. We can make our differences with the Zionists and multiracialists known - widely known - throughout the nationalist community; furthermore, we can put pressure on the Zios to allow nationalists to attend anti-Islam rallies without fear of violence. Our problems need to be 'massified', i.e., put before the nationalist community, and made public. We shouldn't act as individuals and attempt to plead with the Zios as individuals, and we shouldn't feel the need to resort to flattery, schmoozing and begging of the Zio-bosses in order to have our case heard. No, we need to involve all the nationalist and racialist groups and build up a united front against the Zios and use moral shaming (i.e., the censure of the nationalist community). We won't necessarily get our way, any more than Foster's grievance committees could expect to get their way. But we will show that we are capable of organising.

Foster's grievance committee is related to the 'People's Legislative Committee'. Foster conceived of a conference made up of several interlocking communist front organisations with titles such as the Women's League, the All-Negro People's Union, the Farmer's Association, the Unemployed Youth Party... Such a conference would pass resolutions on political and social questions of the day, but more importantly, serve to demonstrate communism's size and power. The skilful deployment of a large number of 'paper' organisations (and most communist fronts exist only on paper) would bring about a multiplier effect. An American Renaissance article reports on what it calls a 'National Coalition in Favor of Campus Censorship', a communist controlled alliance of groups which has drawn up a petition with a staggeringly long list of signatories:

How many of these organisations are 'paper'? We don't know - we can only assume the majority.

What I'm suggesting is not that we nationalists go out and form an improbably large number of front groups; rather, that we get our existing groups and parties together in an 'All-Nationalists Legislative Conference', which will deliberate interstate via teleconference and come up with resolutions against, among other things, Zionism.

The conference should restrict itself to broad questions: it will only obtain unity by doing so. If it touches on controversial questions - such as war in the Ukraine or in Syria, or on the 'correct' assessment of political figures such as Hitler, Milosevic, Ghaddafi, Putin, Assad, Saddam Hussein, et al., or on who is an informant and who isn't - it will fall apart. Many splits and schisms have occurred on the Left in the UK and the US precisely because these sorts of things have been brought up for discussion. (Communist groups in the West will tear themselves apart over far away events of which they have no control over - e.g., the wars in Ukraine or Libya or Syria; they don't abide by the maxim, 'Think global, act local', and thereby end up splitting).

Workers band together in a trade union to defend themselves, and that's precisely what we nationalists who are opposed to Zionism need to do: we need to form a union for our own protection. At present, it seems that we nationalists and racialists are an endangered species.

It's also true that workers form unions in order to build a monopoly, and that's something we nationalists should emulate. Simply put, our conference (or federation or whatever you want to call it) will make resolutions which are binding on all nationalists and patriots; nothing in Australian Far Right politics will be able to pass without its approval.

Now, that sounds terribly presumptuous, and so it is. But no other grouping will make the claim to represent the entirety of nationalism and Far Rightism in Australia - victory goes to those who do - and over time, nationalist activists and groups will see the federation as a body capable of granting legitimacy. That is, if the federation approves of it, it must be good.

Why haven't nationalists in Australia engaged in a joint action such as this before? At first sight, it would seem that the notorious feuding and quarrelling - which has persisted for thirty to forty years - on the Australian Far Right is to blame, but in truth the cause lies deeper.

Karl Marx used to refer to the First International as 'the party' when he really meant 'the movement': that is to say, he used the term 'party' as shorthand for all the little groups and parties which made up the European left-wing movement in the late 19th century. Movement = Party. Likewise, the Russian Communist Party (once known as the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, or RSDLP) could be characterised as more movement than party, more multi-tendency than single-tendency. Supposedly, the RSDLP split into two parties - one Bolshevik, one Menshevik - after the famous Prague conference of 1912, but recent scholarship by the Asian-American communist Pham Binh has revealed this to be a myth (and in this he is supported by Lenin scholar Lars Lih); the Menshevik and other factions endured in the RSDLP for quite a long time - nearly ten years until the ban on factions at the 10th party congress in 1921.

The point is that communists misunderstand their own history. A myth has built up on the Left that true, decent Marxist-Leninists need to form their own little sects and micro-parties, hold dogmatically to the party line, and expel anyone who deviates from that line. By clinging fast to its rather narrow and circumscribed set of beliefs (such as the 'correct' analysis of the former Soviet Union, or Cuba, or North Korea) the sect will prosper and eventually gobble all the rival sects and micro-parties - which are burdened with the 'incorrect' line - up. A Great Big Party will emerge, the worker's revolution against capitalism will begin, etc. (It should be noted that the RSDLP was built on a broad platform, not a narrow one, a fact which made it strong enough to withstand the internal pressures of factionalism and intra-party quarrelling and debate).

One has to admit that analogies can be drawn between the Far Left and Far Right here: after all, the Australian nationalist scene is littered with sects and micro-parties, and I haven't encountered one which doesn't aspire to be the Great Big Party which, by divine right, should gobble all the others up.

So, am I saying that all the existing parties and organisations should dissolve themselves and merge into one generic nationalist and Far Right party? No: each group should continue to exist and to retain its sovereignty; federalism implies that each constituent part of the federation exists separately and autonomously from the other. But those on the anti-Zionist side need to act in concert.

We can understand the Far Right in Australia and the West as being clustered around a pole or 'political center' (to borrow a term from the American New Left theorist Hal Draper). That pole consists of a number of nationalist and racialist political ideas from Europe: the work of Evola and Yockey - for all its faults - best sums up these ideas. Certain groups and tendencies find themselves very close to that pole, while others - such as the Zionists - stand far, far away. The closer groups to the political center have the right to split away from those who diverge and who occupy the outer perimeter, as Draper argues. Here we can find grounds for a legitimate division; here sectarianism helps and not hinders the movement.

But how do we bring about a joint action by the nationalists clustered around the middle against those on the outer (the Zionists?). We need to understand that every group, every tendency, possesses a value - no matter how eccentric, isolated and small that group is. I recently put this argument to a nationalist friend, and observed that Stormfront Down Under still had value, even though it had been surpassed, as a communication tool, by Facebook. My friend dismissed Stormfront Down Under rather peremptorily: 'Oh, it's nothing'. I pressed on and reeled off a big list of names of nationalist groups in Australia, and remarked that all these could be dismissed as being 'nothing' but when all of them are added together, they form a 'something'.

One needs to draw a distinction not between big and small groups, or relevant and irrelevant groups, but between ones which were prepared to undertake political action and those that aren't. For years, we nationalists have avoided the skinhead movement in this country because we viewed them as black sheep, or perhaps the crazy half-brother in a Gothic romance who is locked away in the attic. But they won't go away and have endured for longer than a good many other nationalist formations. And, try as we might, the establishment media and the communist Left will always associate them with us. To me, the real objection towards the skin groups is not their lifestyle - we in the nationalist movement aren't a temperance society - but the fact that the majority of them won't participate in any sort of politics. Those who are willing to come out of their isolation should be accepted.

In the end, it becomes a matter of organisation. You won't introduce skinhead nationalists to intellectual and middle-class nationalists, and you'll keep two nationalists who have a long-running feud away from one another. A real nationalist leader must get used to shuttling back and forth between different groups of people in the movement, making sure that they don't come to blows, and uniting them enough to commit them to a joint action.

What are the joint actions? So far I've proposed 1) a petition to Reclaim and 2) an 'All-Nationalists Legislative Conference', but there needs to be a 3) campaign to drive the Zios out of Aussie nationalism. Every nationalist, no matter what group he belongs to, needs to make war - relentlessly - upon Zionism, whether it be via social media, blogs, print media, word of mouth; he must explain, factually and logically, that there are two separate entities - the Australian nationalist and racialist movement and Zionism - and that one cannot continue to exist without the destruction of the other.

All of our efforts, all of our resources, must be mobilised for this task. In the end, we will succeed in prising the grip of the Jewish nationalists and the Judaised bosses from the Australian nationalist movement.